“I actually think that Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet
that we’ve most probably ever seen. The policies he is initiating will
doom us to extinction.”

-- London’s mayor Ken Livingstone in 2003

“Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn’t play
with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.”

--
Osama bin Laden

After
what must have been one of the most pathetic Democratic Party presidential
campaigns ever, George Bush managed,
legitimately or not, to snag a second term as president.

The mayor of Europe’s largest city seemed to consider Bush a threat as
great to the planet as, supposedly, global warming, but then the
anti-Kyoto Bush is just the person to accelerate a release of greenhouse
gases. Osama bin Laden, for whatever minimal influence he has on the
American electorate, and with a respectable dose of skepticism to the
authenticity of any tapes and videos that purport to be from him, spoke a
truism: at least to some extent Americans determine their security and
fate at the ballot box. With all due skepticism to US election results, a
significant number of Americans opted for warmongering.

Given the shenanigans ongoing in the US Empire it would not be too
surprising that some disgruntled Americans would seek to emigrate. There
are a few articles appearing in the Canadian media envisioning an influx
of Americans fleeing the increasingly fundamentalist US.

Some see fit to poke fun at Americans. One left-leaning Canadian writer,
Scott Piatkowski,
speculated on a potential “progressive-minded” brain drain from the US
to Canada. He found that when he did a Google search on the terms “Bush” +
“I'm moving to Canada” that an “incredible 5,580 hits” were registered.
Like disappearing ballots in the US, an identical search by myself came
back with 1,550 hits -- maybe not so incredible but still maybe
noteworthy.

Canada’s This Magazine beckoned to American progressives
exasperated that an American president derided as a “moron”
north of the border could squeak in for a second term. A spoof
website was
set up inviting Canadians to marry an American progressive to help them
into Canada.

A few of the assumptions are questionable. Equating progressivism with
brainpower is certainly one challengeable assumption. Second, the
assumption that Canadians are much more enlightened than Americans come
election time is also questionable.

This year’s federal election in Canada was depicted as a choice between
the corporate duopoly: i.e., the lesser of two evils. The right-wing
Conservative Party that is pro-war in Iraq, staunchly pro-Zionist,
anti-gay marriage, pro-NAFTA, and is constantly having to silence bigoted
views from its members made the biggest gain, adding 21 seats to its total
from the previous election. The scandal-ridden ruling Liberal Party saw
itself reduced to a minority government. This was due to a neoliberal
agenda in which economic performance adversely affected most Canadians
(the gap between the haves and have-nots continued to rise in the haves
favor); the gay-marriage hot potato was juggled; the government sat on the
fence prior to the invasion of Iraq; and it was sitting on the fence
concerning Canadian participation in Bush’s ballistic missile defense.

The provinces of BC, Alberta, Ontario, and Newfoundland-Labrador are home
to neoliberal regimes.

But to leave the impression that the political situation is identical with
the US would be disingenuous. While the neoliberal Conservative Party saw
a large increase in parliamentary seats, its share of the vote dropped
from 37.7 percent in 2000 to 29.6 percent in 2004. The social democratic
New Democratic Party saw its fortunes improve from 8.5 percent of the vote
in 2000 to 15.6 percent this time around although it only managed to pick
up six more seats for a total of 19.

Progressive views were expressed. Canadians prevented their government
from overtly partaking in the invasion and occupation of Iraq (behind the
scenes the Canadian government actively supported US aggression through
logistical assistance, and freeing up US forces by sending Canadian troops
to Afghanistan while Canadian firms supply the US war machine -- i.e., war
profiteering). Canadians made increased funding for medical care a
prominent election issue and forced it onto the government agenda.

Nonetheless it is rather ironic that some people would consider leaving
the seat of empire to live in an adjunct of empire. Indeed, there is a big
push by a section of corporate Canada for “deep integration” with the US
whereby the economies would be further entwined, a move that threatens the
sovereignty of much more lightly populated Canada.

An influx
of US progressives would undoubtedly shore up the progressive front in
Canada. But what then of empire? With fewer left to continue the struggle
against fascism and imperialism in the US, the outside pressure will
likely build on adjuncts of empire.

Kim Petersen
is a writer living in Nova Scotia, Canada. He can be reached at:
kimpete@start.no.